Saturday, April 17, 2010

How Do You Feel About Human Eyes On Cartoon Characters?

Human eyes, but a cartoon expression that actual human eyes don't ever make. Maybe he has a tick in his left eye.

The human body but with cartoon proportions adds to the perversion. To me that makes him look like a sideshow freak, rather than a wacky cartoon character, but then I'm "old-school".

I wonder when this type of thing started and what the reasoning is behind it?They must think there is something wrong with this design. But then why make a movie of it? Because the stories and characterization were great? Has the whole world gone crazy? I would love to be in on a meeting when some big executives decide how they are going to fix old cartoon characters by changing everything that made them popular. Is there film of a meeting of executives doing this? Now that would be pure entertainment. They should make a movie about the nutty world of executives who hate common sense.This reminds me of when Hollywood takes comedians who are really popular on Saturday Night Live or other shows and then makes depressing serious movies with them. Modern Hollywood purposely goes against what seems to be common sense. They are supposed to be trying to make money, but they go go out of their way to play against everything they know the public expects and wants. It's like a big contest between the major studios for who can make the sickest ugliest most depressing 90 minute torture sessions. It's the modern Inquisition.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/04/mighty-mouse-remake-paramount.html

69 comments:

Human eyes on cartoon characters look like something out of a horror movie to me...creeeeeeeeeeepy!

You've made the point before, and I whole heartedly agree. If they don't like cartoons, why do they keep using them and screwing them up? Why do they always want to take the fun out of what used to be fun?

I think the issue comes in from business analysts presupposing that cartoons were inherently flawed- that their "cartoony-ness" was an incidental side effect of an imperfect system. These creators overly humanized cartoon figures are mistaking abstraction for random error.

For the most part, human eyes make cartoon characters look extremely unappealing and weird, unless they're actually using funny human expressions from life on the cartoon characters, instead of boring stock expressions, like in your cartoons or Bob Clampett's WB cartoons. At least that's why I think.

Think about this way though. Even if this Mighty Mouse remake ends up being an ugly ass childhood crushing disaster, but it ends up doing well in the box office, then Paramount might actually attempt to release some of the Terrytoons library on DVD. I for one believe that the Terrytoons cartoons were just as important as the other cartoons made in the Golden Age (even if a lot of them paled in comparison). Have you thought about this whole remake thing that way?

I just picked up the collection of the Landon correspondence school cartooning lessons and I was thinking of posting them on Cartoon Critique. What do you think of them and the Landon school in general?

I think the sculpture looks great. This is a really old sculpture done by Cam de Leon, an artist who did a lot of promotional art for the band Tool. He also did this. I think, as a sculpture, it generates more interest in this style, rather than the traditional cartoon version. Not that I'd like to see a whole movie done in this style, but as a standalone piece, I think it works.

It's just so weird that they want to keep taking characters that were created specifically for cartoons and turn them into live action characters. The characters are so cartoony that it's really not possible to do that, yet they still try. It would make more sense for them to make a new traditionally animated movie. That article you linked to mentioned the Sponge Bob movie and how much money it made, so why are they making more CGI live action hybrids? You'd think they would see that the market for classic animated films is still there.

Why can't we just call it someones take on something, and appreciate it for just that?I'm not the kind of person that overly enjoys altered re imaginings of classic character designs by any means... But I don't really think this Mighty Mouse example is total crap either. I can see the artist was trying to go with a realistic approach (or whatever you wanna call it).Bottom line, he was trying to do something different.If he doesn't, then all those Mighty Mouse Statues on the shelf, look the same.I wouldn't buy it, but it doesn't bother me. Variety is the spice of life.

they have two ways to go really, sink a crapload of money into an attempt to duplicate the success of a crappy crappy movie like alvin and the chipmunks in the idiotic assumption that making a crappy movie equals box office cash, or they could find a guy who already revived this classic character into the modern world and brought fun and happiness to millions of children (and adults) in doing so. man i bet you could put together a seriously kick ass crew to make this movie and prove that cartoon animation isn't dead yet.

geez i just saw some of Princess and the Frog, and almost had to throw up as it was SUPPOSED to be a return to classic disney animation.

hahahahaha! That glenn beck video is hilarious! He definitely is a man pig. The resemblance of him and the photo above the video is uncanny.

But to get back on topic, 'tude' has been done to death and there is no variety in that expression, or any of these type of movies for that matter. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that.

I think the next groundbreaking idea they'll have in mind is to put all the characters with tude expressions into one CG-3D movie and have them battle it to the death... and of course to win the heart of Princess Tude! dun dun dunnnnnn!

It didn't work for Howard the Duck a whole quarter century ago (jeez, I'm old)but the same bad ideas keep washing up on shore. Big glassy eyes do not make for an appealing character.

A cartoon image is direct. It's an idea boiled down to its base components in order to communicate in less than an instant, and all that texture mapping is no substitute for a good strong pose.Would Bugs Bunny be "improved" if he were covered with synthetic fur?

I still haven't understood the point of trying to make things look as realistic as possible. Whether it be classical animation or CGI making things look like real life is both boring and completely against the logic and purpose of making a cartoon in the first place. This piece looks really uninspired and just plain ugly.

On another point, whilst I understand that CGI is "the future" and everything how expensive can it possibly be to make a proper adaptation in classical animation? Why has 2D animation died out so far in favour of CGI? I don't think kids care whether it's CGI or 2D as long as it's fun and exciting. Is there a bigger cost in production for 2D nowadays, or what?

it is amazing how many people i meet, who have no connection to art animation and cinema, who distaste the currant CGI craze that took over the world. And the rest usually can't tell the difference between 2d and 3d animation. it seems to me that this craze for CGI that the people with the cash got is based solely on some none founded delirium this people have.

The simple fact is that Pixar make pretty good and more important very profitable animated films. So it's easy to understand why every one wants to imitate them, just like that in the 80's and 60's there where lots of Disney imitators The thing is… when Pixar started no body was willing to spend his cold hard cash on a new dangerous endeavor. It took them lots of hard determination to get were they are, replacing Disney. And just like Disney, people will eventually get tired of Pixar.So all we can do is wait, until the time comes, when 2D will have its opportunity to strike back.

As much as I like linework and brush strokes, I can't see people getting tired of 3D. It doesn't have to be all bad -- How to Train Your Dragon took a major step towards good old cartoniness, and I think that's where 3D is heading. Hand drawn cartoons will probably have to make do with television programs.

Wow that cgi mighty mouse is terrible! If his other eye was squished down too, he would look like he's constipated! That part you wrote in the article about snl people doing serious roles made me think of what happened with Jim Carrey who was on In Living Color who at first did comedy films, but then started doing dramatic stuff.

Perhaps the idea of the CGI human-eyed MM was, since humans usually look first at each other's eyes, having human eyes on a cartoon character would make it feel "Human"?

JK, how much time roughly do you spend on a character's facial features .vs. a character's entire pose?

Classic Disney artists I knew (not the "new" crowd) spent most time on eyes / facial features to make sure their character's emotions and personality "read" well.

I remain amazed how folks like Peter Emslie, Ron Dias, Philo Barnhart, and JK (to name 4) get so much expression out of line art.

Ther1, your character (and its film, Despicable Me) comes from Illumination Entertainment (IE), run by Universal and former folks from Fox and Dreamworks. IE's policy's to contract independent studios around the world to do their various productions.

...and if that pix of MM human eyed voxels is indeed what the MM CGI will be, two letters describe it - P_U.

Tropt,In John's defense, this isn't just a rant blog. It's one of the last beacons of hope left in what animation should be like. 3D included. The theories, philosophies, and techniques discussed here are applicable to all platforms of animation.

You can learn a thing or two from here.

I must correct myself though. Tropt is not animationmentor.com, he is a student from there. Sorry for the mistaken identity, Tropt.

I was watching the new adventures of mighty mouse the other day, the ep when he traveled back in time. I loved the ending when the iris closes in on might mouse and he looks like hes going to wink but then breaks into a seizure.

That was so dam funny, I must have rewound that 10 times. Maybe this new 3d series is based solely on that shot

I remember reading about something an actual executive said during a meeting at Warner Bros. He suggested that they scrub Chuck Jones' name off of What's Opera, Doc? for some sleazy reason. Thankfully, that suggestion was turned down emphatically, but it just shows you how stupid and/or sleazy those animation executives can be.

Yeah, that image of Mighty Mouse is disgusting on many levels, not just in the eyes. It looks more like a foam rubber statue brought to life by a demon than a fun cartoon character. I hope that's not the final design.

I actually find the Mighty Mouse to be outrageously hilarious. I guess because it makes me realize how retarded he'd look if he were almost really real. I'd hate to see that in my house stealing my food.

Your right ,they just ruin the whole design.I still can not figure out how these chipmonk movies made so much money when they have all that bad stuff in them.I guess its the conditioning of an audience over the last 10 or so years.

It's a complete artistic failure that happens again and again. I mentioned this on my blog in reation to the Yogi Bear movie- WHAT IS THE POINT of a live action version of a cartoon character? It can be funny to look at, as a joke- as in this-

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/03/yikes_what_a_human_mario_would.php

But why convert a 2-D cartoon character to a 3D-looking object? You abandon al the qualities that make it work in one fell swoop, so your new movie loses all merit instantly. MIghty Mouse works because he is well-designed, has a "cute" cartoon face and funny proportions. To make him work, you give him human eyes, porous, textured skin etc. and end up with this hideous freak of nature.

That "real" Porky Pig is hilarious and the perfect illustration of why this sort of thing doesn't work.

"This reminds me of when Hollywood takes comedians who are really popular on Saturday Night Live or other shows and then makes depressing serious movies with them."

I think it's fun to see the Creatives [a strange race of people that creates fun things] try to challenge themselves. Sometimes it can work very well, like when you, Jim Smith, and...people I don't remember the names of did Son of Stimpy.

is that top pic the actual design? sigh.Called it on cartoon brew. I knew they'd go this way.Why try to make such an outlandish concept "believable" ? why not just revel in it's silliness and do a superman send up staring goofy cartoon animals, but make it cinematic and great?Why does ever cartoon character who gets their own movie nowadays have to exist in the real world? Then they need tear ducts to act toe to toe with Jason Lee or someone.In scooby doo it made partial sense, because Iwo Takamoto made scooby doo such a strange show, paring hanna barbara's johnny quest adventure style with the talking cartoon scooby.Alvin and the chipmunks was always strange, because human dave adopted these chipmunk brothers and forced them into a singing career.is mighty going to be mouse sized beating up live action human goons? is he going to be an ordinary lab mouse who is accidentally transformed into the worlds first wisecracking super powered CGI mouse? It's so predictable!!! Bring on the emotion captured Dane Cook MM, as long as I get me some box set terrytoons on DVD.

Executives love to imitate past successes in the hopes of creating future successes, rather than trying new, creative ideas. This has been taken very literally lately. When the crappy Alvin and The Chipmunks film was a HUGE success, suddenly every corporation got started on doing more remakes. We're getting Yogi Bear, Smurfs, Tom and Jerry, Speedy Gonzales, Marvin the Martian, and more.

What I'm saying is; I've discovered the source of the plague: that first, 2007 Alvin and the Chipmunks film. Somebody get a time machine, go back in time, and kill the director!

Mighty Mouse CGI...are you shitting me? THIS is what they plan on doing with the Caped Rodent Crusader?

There is NO WAY to do the MM movie without doing it as traditional animation. Period. End of story. This is going to SUCK severely. Then again, Alvin and the Chipmunks in CGI not only SUCKED but BLEW. And it made megabucks. (headdesk)

I don't mind these things as standalone sculptures or digital artwork. But not for a whole movie.

In fact I would confess that I'm usually a little curious when they announce one of these movies and I usually want to catch the trailer or the stills to see how the character looks in realistic CGI.

Then I see it looks like crap, and later I see how bad the whole thing seems to be and I wonder why they even tried.

I think it's the novelty of seeing them in a different way what makes the executives think this is ok, and sometimes part of the audience that didn't even know the characters that much, they see that and say "hey, this is a different take". But novelty only goes so far. I'd like people to care about quality more often.

Then again it's the combination of the horrid designs and awful stories that makes those things so terrible. I am such a generous person that I would even be sort of condescendent if they made the characters look ugly but at least they reflected the spirit of the series or the characters. I thought the first Flinstones movie wasn't extremely bad at that. Sure, it was a very silly movie, with silly acting and not that much of a plot, but at least it seemed that the guys who did it had watched some of the cartoons and liked the original personalities of the characters. Now I didn't watch the Garfield movies, but the trailers make them look as if they got everything wrong. Same thing with the upcoming Smurfs and Speedy Gonzales movies.

Chipmunks movies, I watch the first one online, and thought it wasn't one of the worst. A kids movie that it's quite dumb for adults, but it sort of reflects the characters. Maybe that's why this one was succesful.

Now that CGI has proved that it can be very cartoony in movies like Cloudy With a Chance Of Meatballs I would like studios to take that route a little more often. Since it seems pretty implausible that studios would try with traditional 2D animation in modern features they could at least made those Mighty Mouse and Popeye movies in cartoony CGI, and I think they could look great if well done.